1. By way of this appeal, the appellant- Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and award of the M.A.C.T. (Main), Ahmedabad dated 27.11.2000, whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the said claim petition and awarded Rs.2,40,000/- together with costs and interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application, till its realization.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 29.10.1992, while the deceased-Yasinbhai Ganibhai Patel was driving a scooter bearing Registration No.GJ-1-S-9651 dashed by Metador bearing Registration No.GJ-7-A-640 on the Sarkhej Highway. As a result thereof, the deceased received severe bodily injuries and expired. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4, herein, being the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased preferred the aforesaid claim petition, wherein the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present appeal.
Tribunal erred in passing the impugned judgment and award. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is highly exaggerated, and therefore, he has prayed to allow the present appeal.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents have opposed the appeal and have prayed to dismiss the same, as being without merit.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. To prove the factum of the accident, the original claimants led oral as well as documentary evidence in the form of Panchnama Exh:23, FIR of the accident etc.. The claimants also examined widow of the deceased Sairabibi at Exh:21 to strengthen their case. The case put forward by the original claimants also gets support from the evidence of eye-witness Allarakha Gulamrasul Shaikh at Exh:39. The respondents did not examine the driver of the vehicle to controvert the case put forward by the original claimants. Hence, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the accident in question took place on account of sole negligence on the part of the driver of the matador and therefore, it rightly held that the original claimants are entitled to claim compensation.
6. In so far as the aspect of quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal assessed prospective income of the deceased at Rs.32,500/- and after deducting Rs.10,500/- from the said amount arrived at the figure of Rs.22,000/- towards loss of annual income or annual dependency. However, while doing so, the Tribunal appears to have lost-site of the fact that the deceased was aged about 51 years at the time of accident. In the case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009(6) SCC 121, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that no rise in income should be considered in respect of a person aged about more than 51 years. Here the deceased being of 51 years, the Tribunal has wrongly granted rise in income. It has also come on record that in all, there are four family members who were depends on the deceased, therefore, in view of the above sited decision of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (supra), the Tribunal ought to have deducted 1/4th amount. It has also come on record that the deceased was regularly paying income tax and his average income comes to Rs.25,000/- per annum. To support the aforesaid facts, the income tax return for the assessment years i.e. 1990-1991, 1991-1992 and 1992-1993, the Tribunal has therefore rightly assessed that the average income of the deceased can be considred to be at Rs.25,000/- per annum. Since there were four members in the family of the deceased, after deducting 1/4th amount, amount towards loss of dependency per annum would come to Rs.18,750/-. Since the deceased was aged about 51 years as per Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (supra), if multiplier of 11 is applied, the same would be just and proper. Thus, applying the said multiplier, the total towards amount dependency would come to Rs.2,06,250/-. Since the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,40,000/-, excess amount (Rs.2,40,000/- - Rs.2,06,250/- = Rs.33,750/-) Rs.33,750/- is required to be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company.
7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
The appellant-Insurance Company shall be refunded excess amount of Rs.33,750/- along with interest, if any. The judgment and award of the Tribunal stands modified to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(K.S. JHAVERI,J.) koshti/